Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:53): No and no to both of the questions posed by the Manager of Opposition Business. I have seen the report of Dyson Heydon's speech to the Centre for Independent Studies, and, my God, I think it was extraordinary! He said that the Rudd government had done 'non-substantive' things. Frankly, that is the best thing that has ever been said about the Rudd government. If there is any bias, it is bias in favour of the Rudd government. He is the least critical person of the Rudd government of anyone in Australia. The Rudd government was so non-substantive that the Leader of the Opposition executed the Prime Minister. The Manager of Opposition Business went on television to re-enact his role in the political assassination of Kevin Rudd. Really and truly, the idea that Dyson Heydon's statement that there was a tendency by the Rudd government to do non-substantive things is somehow evidence of bias—that is evidence of gentle tolerance of the most incompetent government in Australian history. Let me say this to the Manager of Opposition Business— Mr Conroy interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Charlton. Mr ABBOTT: if it is okay for Michael Kirby, while a serving judge, to address the Labor lawyers, if it is okay for Mary Gaudron, while a serving judge, to address the Labor lawyers, and if it is okay for Michael McHugh, while a serving judge, to address the Labor lawyers, why is it wrong for an ex royal commissioner to address Liberal lawyers? You know, as soon as he realised that it was a Liberal badged event, he pulled out. Mr Conroy interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Charlton will remove himself under 94(a). He has been warned multiple times. The member for Charlton then left the chamber. Mr ABBOTT: Yet again, Labor members are verballing a distinguished former High Court judge. It is actually a criminal offence to attack a serving royal commissioner. It is actually a criminal offence. Now I am sure that former justice Dyson Heydon is big enough to deal with the vicious slander from members opposite to which he has been exposed. He is an honourable man. He should be allowed to get on with his job. Members opposite should stop trying to protect and defend the indefensible. (Time expired)